tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post287617866185247753..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: THAT'S IT FOR MERosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger279125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-91092662742409312652019-05-21T13:50:44.864+01:002019-05-21T13:50:44.864+01:00LOL at your faux outrage on behalf of Geoff, as if...LOL at your faux outrage on behalf of Geoff, as if you weren't one and the same. You think I should let blatant lies pass without comment?<br /><br />I don't claim to know what happened to Madeleine, only the people who made her disappear know that, and probably a number of detectives too. <br /><br />In my opinion, the theory put forward by Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation is the only theory that makes any sense. If there is an alternate theory, supported by the evidence available, and equally as convincing, please let me know. Actually, let the world know, everyone is waiting for it.<br /><br />You are irked because musing is not against the law Llota, nor is having an alternate opinion to your own. You are performing somersaults to find ways to accuse of me of breaking the law. I may use the word 'believe' but I really mean 'know'. LOL, good luck arguing that in Court. Your Honour, we ask that you do not judge the defendant by her words, but by what she didn't say.<br /><br />As for Lorraine Kelly. What can I say, I have a pet hate for adult women who speak with voices that sounded cute when they were 6 years old. I find it creepy. It only really worked for Marilyn Monroe, on plain middle aged women it is grotesque. As for her tax scandals, take a look at #LorraineKelly.<br /><br />You may not like the way in which I discuss the McCanns, but I don't like the way in which they and the media are deceiving the public. As far as I can see I am the only commentator reporting on the Madeleine case honestly. I won't headline obscure names pulled out of a hat as a possible abductor of Madeleine, to keep the abduction story going because I KNOW they are nonsense. My objective, if I have one, is to challenge the fake news not promote it. I have a large and loyal readership because my readers know I will not lie to them. I write under the principles of honesty and integrity, I am not 'owned' by anyone, my thoughts and my opinions are mine alone. <br /><br />You seem to contradict yourself many times Llota, you mock my happy go luck, chilled persona yet also claim I am constantly in a rage. And tantrums? As I have explained before, I have excellent communication skills, I can explain myself perfectly well, I don't need to throw tantrums. <br /><br />If I am chilled, it is because the people I have admired the most throughout my life have been most notably, chilled. From my beloved dad to Marlon Brando to John Lennon to every great author I have ever read. And a special mention for PG Wodehouse because he was exceptionally chilled. I strive to emulate those I admire, doesn't everyone?<br />It isn't necessary to be consumed with anger to find massive great big holes in the McCanns abduction story. Most people who follow the case and those who read here are not emotionally involved in the case. They are following it because it is a human interest story that has stayed in the headlines for 12 years. They are curious, as am I, sadly for the parents, with the same detached sense as if they following a reality show. They neither love nor hate the participants and they are forgotten the instant they change channels. <br /><br />When I shut my lid on my laptop, the McCanns et al, never enter my thoughts. I am presently enjoying this lull by binge watching Versailles and enjoying every scrumptious moment. I adore costume dramas, especially these days as I am able to google every character and see pictures and read biographies, it is bliss, though it is slowing up the whole watching process, lol. <br /><br />Like every poster of your ilk Llota you cannot accept that no believing does not equal hate and anger. It is as it is.Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-19527042825643182642019-05-20T16:14:25.971+01:002019-05-20T16:14:25.971+01:00My dislike of vigilantes, does not mean that I am ...My dislike of vigilantes, does not mean that I am defending paedophiles. That is a disingenuous and ugly misinterpretation of my words. I took my abusers to court and I also wrote a book about it, to suggest I am defending abusers is absurd. I’ve spent a lifetime studying evil, I needed to know why these people acted as they did, but unlike yourself I have not closed off subjects that don’t interest me. I have looked at the bigger picture, the culture that existed at the time. <br /><br />The courts are clogged up with victims of the child abuse from the childrens homes and the institutions. Most of the children did not have parents or family to speak up for them. I witnessed that first hand, the orphans got the worst of it. Why was it happening all over the country? Because that was the (unspoken) ideology of the time. We were children of the undeserving poor, the shamed single mothers, the feckless. That is how I am able to reconcile it now, it wasn’t personal. Happily those old institutions have been knocked down, and happily, thanks to Esther Ranzen, children now have a voice, or at the very least I hope, access to support services. Convent kids were turfed out at 16 and told to fend for themselves.<br /><br />You see I too want to protect children Llota, but my approach is the polar opposite to your own. I don’t know what your own is, but I’m pretty sure it involves a baseball bat. The best way to protect children, and their parents, is to empower them. Like animals in the wild, predators go for the weakest of the herd. The confident kids have already kicked them in the face and run away. You on the other hand want to use the internet to track down perverts who MAY commit a heinous crime. A bit like ‘Minority Report’. You don’t however have that knowledge or technology, so you are effectively spitting in the wind. Meanwhile you totally ignore the heinous crimes against children in their own homes. Wouldn’t you like to see more social workers, more counsellors, people vulnerable children (and adults) could call for support and advice? Would young Tia Sharp still be with us if she had had someone or somewhere to turn to? Tia wasn’t murdered by someone online, she was murdered by someone who knew her, and sadly that is usually the case.<br /><br />You scoff at enlightenment, that is you scoff at education and knowledge, you fear it as a weapon, instead of using it to broaden your mind. It is not some elite world that you are excluded from. My own favourite authors pepper their writing with fascinating facts they have learned along life’s journey. They have inspired me to explore areas I might not otherwise have considered, I hope I inspire readers to do the same. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-9323106822607002252019-05-20T16:10:25.868+01:002019-05-20T16:10:25.868+01:00You claim not to have read panda, yet you appeared...You claim not to have read panda, yet you appeared on my blog directly after I stopped publishing his posts and you sound exactly like him! Both of you are enraged by the same subject. Coincidence? Why the need for the pointless lie? Matters not to me, but once caught in a lie your credibility is shot.<br /><br />The ideology of the 50’s and 60’s is relevant to the discussion Llota, and it is a shame you do not take some time to look at the way society has evolved. Some would say everything changed in the 60’s, it was a time of free love and shedding your clothes, bras especially. I had one ex (shudders) who blamed everything on ‘the pill’. For him, liberating women was a step too far. To fully understand a subject Llota, you need to look at it from every perspective. <br /><br />Take single mothers for example. You could argue, quite convincingly that the free love of the 60s has led to a sharp increase in mothers without husbands. The ‘shame’ has gone, young girls who become pregnant are not shunned or sent away. It was ‘shame’ that kept women from being promiscuous., it was shame that kept women in their place, underlings of men.<br /><br />As for homosexuality, it was illegal. Illegal for men, Queen Victoria didn’t think women did that sort of thing. In the 50’s and 60’s it was believed that homosexuals were also paedophiles, they were the worst kind of pervert, hated in the same way as paedophiles are today. Ergo they were vulnerable to blackmail and people who would use their homosexuality to control and destroy them. They were of course also vulnerable to gangs of thugs who wanted to beat the life out of them. <br /><br />You are right. I dislike vigilantes. I find the whole concept primeval and barbaric. Shouting ‘think of the children’ thugs are able to live out their sadistic fantasies cheered on by people who think these barbarians are heroes. It terrifies me that these ill educated people with masses of issues (they would never qualify for the police) are taking the law into their own hands. They are the ones selecting the targets and setting up the showdowns. It should scare all of us.Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-83127476616658785732019-05-20T13:17:04.689+01:002019-05-20T13:17:04.689+01:00Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 12:24
''It...Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 12:24<br /><br />''It is funny how those who purport to protect children often turn out to be the biggest abusers. I certainly found that to be the case when I was taken into care, turns out I was a lot safer 'on the streets'.''<br /><br />Why are you being so stubborn, Ros.You may have one or two reasonable points in your long posts about this subject but, as in the past, you have made far more points that are way off base.Are you doing it to be shocking or provocative and to generate a little controversy and reaction ? Or do you really believe what you're saying makes sense ?It seems to make no difference at all what subjects is discussed here, you have your strong opinions and you believe everything you thinks and say is right and anyone who points out why you ( and your opinions) are so often wrong, needs some kind of help because they have to be 'mad' to think you could ever be wrong about anything.Then the tantrums follow.<br /><br />Why not prove your point to those who disagree and the tantrums won't need to happen.Just put people straight instead of saying they need to go away and start their own blog or that you'll introduce a new regime to silence anyone who doesn't agree with you.It makes you sound dictatorial and it actually weakens the original points you try to make.If they were as strong as you say they are they could stand on their own two feet without you trying so hard to hold them up or stop people scrutinizing them.Being contrary isn't an endearing quality.<br />Llotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03259282354453280799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-77251610911536811122019-05-20T12:59:53.312+01:002019-05-20T12:59:53.312+01:00Rosalinda Hutton19 May 2019 at 13:56
''Mo...Rosalinda Hutton19 May 2019 at 13:56<br /><br />''More lies Geoff, you are getting desperate to justify your rage. I didn't say 'knowing' as in I'm not happy 'knowing' the parents were involved, I said 'not believing', huge difference.''<br /><br />That's right, Ros, everyone is full of rage apart from you.You are constantly in a serene state.Hence you relaxed 'musing' and happy go lucky personality.Geoff is the latest to be accused.Is it to send out a message to anyone considering disagreeing with you or pointing out your double standards and hypocrisy ?<br /><br />You preach that nothing other than the guilt of the parents is worth discussion regarding this case.You see no other possible solution to it and no other realistic scenario.You commit thousands of words telling us why GM is cold hearted and snide, and why KM is evil. You tell everyone about probable fraud being committed by them through the fund.You insist that they , at some point, buried their child and at some point secreted her in the boot of a hired car.But you're trying to hide behind your '' i said believe, not know'' argument now.Your message is clear here.When did you ever go into lengthy discussion about the possibility of anyone else being guilty or of the parents being innocent ? You may try to defend your message behind that 'believe' excuse, but your replies and angry reactions to anyone reminding you that Madeleine hasn't actually been declared dead, cancels that defence out quite obviously.<br /><br />You slate any public commentators who voice support of the parents via TV and newspapers.You say all celebrities who support the parents are no better.You suggested recently that Lorraine Kelly had a sickening 'little girl voice' and was( somehow) 'probably a tax dodger'.<br /><br />You tell everyone that Amaral's book is filled with truth and what Amaral believes happened to Madeleine ( buried by the parents) is the definitive explanation.If anyone counters with alternative theories you tell them they are wrong and that they are mentally odd for coming up with them.You say the McCanns have kept a secret for 12 years and it's beginning to tell on them.You point out how their lies showed through slips of the tongue and body language.You don't care that no evidence exists, as you think they're so guilty and it's so obvious that evidence isn't needed other than for an actual trial.<br /><br />''I have never anywhere in my blog claimed to know what happened to Madeleine.''<br /><br />Nobody at all who reads your blog believes that if they know how to read and understand what they're reading.Anyone who says they do believe it are as consumed with anger as you and just as unconcerned with research, truth and logic.<br />Llotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03259282354453280799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-90279127601410107482019-05-20T02:18:35.760+01:002019-05-20T02:18:35.760+01:00I haven't read anything by anyone called Panda...I haven't read anything by anyone called Panda.I haven't 'raged' about anything either.You're trying ( poorly) to suggest both.But if you or anyone else read what I said, it's clear I have only addressed you and bjorn and the very strange claims you both make and don't support.I pointed that out.Somebody had to.<br /><br />I don't really care why you raised the 50s and 60s.If you and bjorn want to rage against those who perceive paedophiles as dangerous then fair enough.But don't try to use some invented ideology nobody has seen or can find from the 50s and 60s that relate to the points in question. Who teaches fear and shame any way ? And what does enlightenment have to do with the safety of children ?It takes common sense and sense of reality.<br /><br />The apathy and ignorance i was referring to was the apathy and ignorance of naive people who consider themselves ever so enlightened and modern by expressing ill informed opinions about vigilant members of society because they seem to be against child abuse.Those people who want to call everyone paranoid for worrying or paranoid for trying to catch them or claiming the law is centuries behind the times.The same people who claim that to want paedophiles found and put away are doing it because they themselves are probably paedophiles ( according to bjorn).Those who point to art and literature as some kind of bizarre weapon to use against uncultured plebs who don't realise that underage sex has long been part of 'culture'.That kind of apathy and ignorance.<br /><br />''But if you are worried about the next generation's safety and well being, why not start your own blog? ''<br /><br />I didn't realise that was the rule.If anyone disagrees with you they should go elsewhere and start their own blog ?So can I take it that you invite views that praise and agree with yours but any that do the opposite aren't welcome ?<br /><br />''If you are not a paedophile hunter, you could work hand in hand with them, I am sure they would appreciate your expertise.''<br /><br />So, if anyone doesn't think the McCanns buried their own child are part of 'Team McCann'. If anyone suggests that it's important to prioritise the safety of our children and not take it for granted, they're a 'paedhophile hunter'.<br /><br />If you ever learn to accept that the world isn't just black and white you might learn to listen and discuss things properly. You seem to think you know it all. That's a sure sign of it being far from true.<br /><br />LlotaLlotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03259282354453280799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6681778697259600072019-05-19T14:32:16.404+01:002019-05-19T14:32:16.404+01:00You certainly have a bee in your bonnet about paed...You certainly have a bee in your bonnet about paedophilia Llota, you only turned up when Panda raised the subject, and you have been raging about it ever since. <br /><br />I raised the lessons of the 50's and 60's to demonstrate society's changing attitudes towards sexuality, it is pertinent to this debate, you cannot ignore history and culture, the reasons why certain ideology exists. Do we teach fear and shame or do we teach freedom and enlightenment?<br /><br />Finally, your greatest fear appears to be apathy and ignorance. Apathy with regard to protecting our children? Hardly. Parents are more protective of their children now than they have ever been. They have given up their own lives to chauffeur their children everywhere. And happily, they are far more enlightened than previous generations. They are not the easy prey you seem to think they are. They have access to all the information they could possibly need, they would have to be living in a bubble if they were unaware of the dangers of online predators, or indeed any sort of predator. <br /><br />But if you are worried about the next generation's safety and well being, why not start your own blog? Tell people where they are going wrong and you are going right? If you are not a paedophile hunter, you could work hand in hand with them, I am sure they would appreciate your expertise. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-10466720313183457702019-05-19T13:56:14.886+01:002019-05-19T13:56:14.886+01:00More lies Geoff, you are getting desperate to just...More lies Geoff, you are getting desperate to justify your rage. I didn't say 'knowing' as in I'm not happy 'knowing' the parents were involved, I said 'not believing', huge difference.<br /><br />I have never anywhere in my blog claimed to know what happened to Madeleine. They only people who know what happened to Madeleine as those who made her disappear. <br /><br />The thing is Geoff, I know, that I never use the word 'know', ergo I was able to spot your lie immediately. I am sure others did too.<br /> Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-60742695849228798172019-05-18T21:48:39.237+01:002019-05-18T21:48:39.237+01:00Anonymous18 May 2019 at 14:14
''Llota see...Anonymous18 May 2019 at 14:14<br /><br />''Llota seems to be laying deliberate traps...This Llota brought up the subject themselves at some length.., that is the only reason it is being discussed here at all. So what could this comment possibly mean, ''<br /><br />It means you're a bit paranoid as well as a liar.I never brought it up at all if you scroll up the page and pay attention.But I replied to those who were going on about it. Don't use my name to help sell your paranoid lies thank you.<br /><br />LlotaLlotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03259282354453280799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-49830382143330405782019-05-18T20:09:16.760+01:002019-05-18T20:09:16.760+01:00Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 19:36
''Yo...Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 19:36<br /><br />''Your first paragraph is a blatant lie Llota. I have explained many times and in many ways why I do not believe the parents of Madeleine McCann.''<br /><br />You don't understand do you. I said you have blogged for years about two people being guilty of a crime you can't identify.How is that a lie ? Because that's what I actually said rather than what you've chosen to misquote.What's the crime they committed that caused their daughter to be no more ?<br /><br />''Sadly, you are an example of why the subject cannot be discussed in an adult fashion. Try to calm down a bit and think logically.''<br /><br /> I laid out a simple statement or two.You gave a knee jerk reaction and began with a misquotation.Who is it that really needs to calm down and think logically ?<br /><br />Your reference to the 50s and 60s don't concern me as i never pointed to them as relevant today.My approach to educate parents along with their children is one that fits today's changing, evolving times.Why do you think parents keep getting instructions about online vigilance and kids are told not to walk off with anyone ? My way accommodates the change as well as it's evolution.<br /><br />You ask what laws i want introducing . Again, I never said i did. You're struggling to address my points so your pretending i made ones that you can discuss.The laws already exist.They don't need changing.Vigilance in protecting our children is down to us, not the law.<br /><br />''The arguments you put forward are the same arguments put forward by anti nudity protesters decades ago. ''<br /><br /> Such as ? I never mentioned anything in the way of images or the like.But, you seem to be re-writing my script to give yourself an opportunity to preach your gospel.<br /><br />''Try to tell us exactly what it is you fear Llota, I don't doubt your strength of feeling, but I am having trouble understanding you. Fewer words perhaps.'<br /><br />Apathy and ignorance with regard to this and the next generation's safety and well being.<br /><br />LlotaLlotahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03259282354453280799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-48519798748953923862019-05-18T19:36:23.938+01:002019-05-18T19:36:23.938+01:00Your first paragraph is a blatant lie Llota. I ha...Your first paragraph is a blatant lie Llota. I have explained many times and in many ways why I do not believe the parents of Madeleine McCann. I am proud of the fact that there is nothing ambivalent about what I say, I like to think that is why my writing is enjoyable to read. <br /><br />It is hard to gauge what it is you are trying to say Llota, due to the hysteria. Sadly, you are an example of why the subject cannot be discussed in an adult fashion. Try to calm down a bit and think logically.<br /><br />You are misinterpreting education as abuse Llota. We are an evolving world, the lessons of the 50's and 60's no longer apply. And thank heavens for that. My generation were taught that sex and nudity was evil and shameful. You surely don't want to go back to that, or do you?<br /><br />What laws do you want introduced to protect children from bogeymen and online predators? More policing of the internet, teenagers specifically? A special task force perhaps monitoring the texts and images they send. How about burkhas for babies? Stop them showing off their chubby little arms and thighs, and sending pedos off into a frenzy. <br /><br />The arguments you put forward are the same arguments put forward by anti nudity protesters decades ago. I will add anti mini skirts and anti hot pants protestors too, due to the amount of sermons I had to listen to about them as a child. Turns out they weren't the beginning of the apocalypse after all. <br /><br />Try to tell us exactly what it is you fear Llota, I don't doubt your strength of feeling, but I am having trouble understanding you. Fewer words perhaps.<br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-65391484069880022342019-05-18T18:56:24.910+01:002019-05-18T18:56:24.910+01:00Anonymous18 May 2019 at 14:14
''Llota see...Anonymous18 May 2019 at 14:14<br /><br />''Llota seems to be laying deliberate traps.<br />This Llota brought up the subject themselves at some length, that is the only reason it is being discussed here at all. So what could this comment possibly mean, and what could possibly be the intention of Llota posting here?''<br /><br /><br />Maybe he or she's a Russian.Or a private investigator.Get a grip of yourself with the 'traps' nonsesne.It's called a debate.Stop seeing phantoms everywhere.It's the internet ffs.Ohhh quick make some rule changes. lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-83144176833625932142019-05-18T18:52:23.371+01:002019-05-18T18:52:23.371+01:00Björn18 May 2019 at 16:06
It is a cliche. People ...Björn18 May 2019 at 16:06<br /><br />It is a cliche. People hear it and people repeat it to simplify complex situations.It may apply in some cases but it doesn't to all.Beaten kids will grow up angry and probably beat others up, I agree. They've shaped by personal experience.But that's violence. I know some adults who had horrendous beatings as kids and the thought of hurting their own kids couldn't be further from their mind.They use their experience to learn and then break a cycle.You're making a generalisation but pretending it's more.<br /><br />''As for paedophiles, I cannot imagine that any of them, as children have had a natural relation to their own sexuality, nor that they've been loved for who they are.''<br /><br />Of course not.They're damaged emotionally, physically and psychologically.But that doesn't mean they are potential paedophiles.They too can learn from the horror and use that to break a cycle.<br /><br />''This is scientifically proved and generally accepted. No need to argue more about that.''<br /><br /> Yes, Psychology says so.I know.But so do most people, as common sense said so first.<br /><br />''We always tend to treat others just as we’ve been treated and brought up ourselves. There’s a correlation here, which we cannot deny. Please don’t try to misinterpret me again.''<br /><br /> It's easy to interpret you.No need to misinterpret anything.But that doesn't mean because you're clear that you're also correct.You are trying to make complex situations and complex states of mind simple.They aren't.They require much work and much counselling. That's because they are far from simple and always individual.; ie, you can't apply a general rule like a one-size-fits-all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-45105963094040192019-05-18T18:33:24.342+01:002019-05-18T18:33:24.342+01:00makes no difference really.It doesn't matter i...makes no difference really.It doesn't matter if your a policeman or nutty blogger. Beliefs mean nothing.He can believe in fairies if he likes. It can't be proven one way or another if he's right to or not.Same goes for everyone who think their beliefs are law.But, don't rule out a deathbed confession.After all, who can check the source once they've snuffed it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-14318977221801865632019-05-18T17:29:54.288+01:002019-05-18T17:29:54.288+01:00Notice how Jim Gamble's been in the media agai...Notice how Jim Gamble's been in the media again recently? He's saying he believes the case will be solved based on a future confession.<br /><br />Gamble knows darned well there will be no confession, but it doesn't stop Big Jim from making money selling drivel to newspapers and documentary makers.<br /><br />What? He didn't get paid. Such a highly unlikely story.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-40125544291047493742019-05-18T17:22:46.502+01:002019-05-18T17:22:46.502+01:00Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 15:19
''Re...Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 15:19<br /><br />''Redutio ad absurdum Llota, you reduce the argument to absurdity because your beliefs do not hold up to scrutiny''<br /><br /> I'm afraid it takes a lot more than a Latin phrase book to translate a lie into truth. It's ironic that you have dedicated so many years and effort to tell the world that two people are guilty of a crime you can't identify, and, when you're asked what the evidence is, you still have no answers that '' hold up to scrutiny'' ( ask the police ).<br /><br />You and bjorn are talking in the language of fantasy.Who are these men pretending to be children ? Is it because you read about the online protection tactic of entrapping online predators a few years ago ? Is that what you're clasping so tightly and trying to suggest is rife now ? I'm afraid you have to show that's happening rather than just run with your 'hunches'.<br /><br />Are you seriously suggesting that paedophilia is an internet phenomenon ? It was rife before you had the internet.So educating children about the internet isn't much use to children who leave the house to step into the real world is it.<br /><br />Tell bjorn about the difference between a vigilant neighbour and potential nutcase. It was his 'theory'.<br /><br />My approach to child protection hasn't been posted on your blog for you to comment on.But, for the record, It would be to educate children and parents together in groups in schools. Educating them about on as well as off line dangers, rather than instructing the children about sex and how it's fun, not frightening.To me that is the opposite of remedying the problem.It's nurturing curiosity in fertile minds.<br /><br />''Bjorn and I are discussing the subject in a reasonable, adult fashion, were are both educated, ergo we do not fear discussing 'taboo' subject. That you find our discussion outrageous bemuses me, have you reached for the smelling salts yet?''<br /><br />Unfortunately I'm unshockable when it comes to the ignorance of people.They never cease to disappoint or disillusion me.They are a constant reminder of why the world is so f**d up.<br /><br />Llota<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-67729835316566018152019-05-18T17:04:03.612+01:002019-05-18T17:04:03.612+01:00Björn18 May 2019 at 15:09
''Yes,I do as it...Björn18 May 2019 at 15:09<br />''Yes,I do as it has in fact become very difficult to discuss the subject in question in a civilized and decent manner. ''<br /><br />And my question attached to that statement was where isn't it a taboo subject. Is that how you conclude what is or isn't 'taboo' ? The manner in which it's discussed ?What you are not realising is that a high percentage of normal, well adjusted people find the subject of crimes and forms of abuse inflicted upon children a highly emotive one and, as such, it can raise the temperature of discussion at times.Does that make people who feel strongly about protecting children from monsters uncivilised and indecent ? That's a pretty damning indictment.You don't care who you insult do you ( apart from the sick animals you're making excuses for, of course).<br /><br />You have failed to understand the problems that paedophiles pose. You have failed to acknowledge the distinction between that and the bizarre examples of innocent nudity from art and culture . You seem to be going for the liberal ever-so-enlightened stance and alienating almost everyone who looks at facts and gives a damn.<br /><br />''In a totalitarian state nothing of that kind can be seriously and openly discussed and that's the reason why I'm now worried about that sexuality in general, and paedophilia in particular''<br /><br />We don't live in a Totalatarian state do we.And the subject can be discussed can't it. So what the hell are you talking about.The only problem in discussions about it is when uninformed preachers pounce from the woodwork when the subject's raised and start making apologies and excuses for the perpetrators.It isn't the fault of the law that paedophillia is illegal, it was thanks to it.It isn't dinosaur judges misunderstanding art or Shakespeare either.Nobody has reason to invent child trafficking as a phenomenon. Why would they ?It's real. You might not want to look at it but guess what- it's still there.And so are the dangers to children.<br /><br />Parents, on the one hand, are instructed how to be vigilant with regard to protection, yet, on the other hand are told they won't be given any voice to protest against schools introducing sex education to small children on another.The world doesn't need any more apologists for these people.It needs a voice.<br /><br />LlotaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-23454576074219455332019-05-18T16:41:15.601+01:002019-05-18T16:41:15.601+01:00Anonymous18 May 2019 at 13:52
What a long post. B...Anonymous18 May 2019 at 13:52<br /><br />What a long post. By abuse and detractors, can we take it you mean that anyone not prepared to endorse the same line as the two police forces, that is, that the McCanns are innocent and that nothing by way of evidence says any different.In short, that opposition to a rumour is trolling and questioning a rumour is detracting.But I can see the sense in turning off the comments section.Most of the more sane posts that are constructed well are not put together by antis.The shorter ''really funny'' ones are.As such the see-saw has tipped back somewhat recently and panic has ensued.<br /><br />I think the high security measures is a little dramatic considering, don't you ? It's a blog after all , not a section of the Pentagon that's been hacked into. It's just a blog for talking about things( allegedly).<br /><br />Geoff<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-12273717183745161282019-05-18T16:06:07.637+01:002019-05-18T16:06:07.637+01:00Hello PK 17 May 2019 at 20:20
"So, the old c...Hello PK 17 May 2019 at 20:20<br /><br />"So, the old cliche 'the abused becomes the abuser' is now a law of Psychology is it"<br /><br />It's not a cliché PK. In the poor black communities in the US young children often become victims of all kinds of abuse due to poverty and drugs. They often grow up being not just physically beaten but also emotionally violated, which naturally later in their lives will affect them in a negative way, making them criminals as well.<br /><br />As for paedophiles, I cannot imagine that any of them, as children have had a natural relation to their own sexuality, nor that they've been loved for who they are. <br /><br />If sexually abused children, who've been beaten and also psychologically abused are not given a chance to recover from the violence and pain that they've experienced in their childhood, they run a bigger risk than other children to become perpetrators themselves. This is scientifically proved and generally accepted. No need to argue more about that.<br /><br />Do you believe that children who've been badly treated, whether sexually or physically harmed as children, automatically learn from their experiences and therefore, still being in the same social environment, later in their lives are going to treat their own children with love, care and respect. Of course they won't.<br /><br />If this would be the case, then using physical violence when raising children wouldn't be so awful as we often imagine because they would remember how badly it did hurt, thus making them caring and loving parents when they get children of their own. <br /><br />You know as well as me, it doesn't work that way.<br /><br />We always tend to treat others just as we’ve been treated and brought up ourselves. There’s a correlation here, which we cannot deny. Please don’t try to misinterpret me again.<br /><br /><br />Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-64386527489332215812019-05-18T15:42:19.147+01:002019-05-18T15:42:19.147+01:00Goodness me C, I feel as though I have had a visit...Goodness me C, I feel as though I have had a visit from a kind and protective good Angel, that it follows so closely on from my 'Streetcar Named Desire' quote, '...the kindness of strangers, sent a shiver down my spine.<br /><br />I literally have nobody to speak to! No-one who would understand my conundrum and no-one who could think of a practical solution. I'm told 'you'll figure it out', haven't yet, but going to try alcohol later lol.<br /><br />It is as if you can see right inside my head C! Bless you so much for taking the time and trouble to explain it, not only to me, but to my readers. I will be following your suggest A helpful person above (many thanks), has pointed out that 'google user' still allows anonymity, but I'm not sure that is the ideal solution.<br /><br />I'm going out now, but I am going to read, and re-read your post when I get back. And if I may be so bold C, perhaps we could talk further by email or phone? My email address is Rosalindahutton@gmail.com.<br /><br />Meanwhile, bless you, bless you, I shall go a wandering with a spring in my step :)<br />Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-26545475380635895792019-05-18T15:19:07.131+01:002019-05-18T15:19:07.131+01:00Redutio ad absurdum Llota, you reduce the argument...Redutio ad absurdum Llota, you reduce the argument to absurdity because your beliefs do not hold up to scrutiny.<br /><br />Bjorn and I are talking about paedophile hunters, those enforcing the law themselves by enticing targets to break the law. Middle aged men pretending to be 13 year old girls (why don't they ever pretend to be boys?) talking dirty to each other. If you were part of a burglar hunter group, would you go out wearing a tutu and ribbons? See I can reduce it to absurdity too. <br /><br />The only effective way to protect children and vulnerable people is through education. If a parent thinks their child is spending way too much time online and is acting strangely, they need to intervene. The parent, care giver, is the child's first point of defence. They can do more to save their child than a thousand pedo hunters.<br /><br />There is a world of difference Llota, between being a vigilant neighbour , reporting a burglary etc, and actively spending 16 hours a day online tracking down perverts and luring them to a car park where you can batter them with a baseball bat. That's just sport. More accurately, bloodsport.<br /><br />But again. If you really want to help children who are being abused, there are hundreds of philanthropic ways in which you can do this. I think for example, every school should have a mentoring or a counselling service. A safe place where students can discuss whatever they want, freely, something they may not have at home. This may be a way to spot kids who are being targeted or groomed by a stranger online. Isn't prevention the better option?<br /><br />I remember how incredibly naive I was as a young single mother and also incredibly lonely. I thought the 'Sure Starts' were a terrific innovation by the (Labour) government, a great place to learn about positive parenting with people around who could answer the thousands of questions a new mum has. I was alone, no mother or family on hand, rare in those days, but more common now as people relocate. I relied on parenting magazines for everything from weaning to potty training and my personal favourite, synchronised sleeping.<br /><br />Such is the way the world is evolving, we are much in need of counselling and mentoring services. People are increasingly becoming more and more isolated, one person households is the fastest growing demographic. We speak to people more online than we do face to face. What was once a solution to loneliness, is now the preferred option. It is easy to see how a young or vulnerable person can fall under the spell of a manipulative predator. But that again goes back to the parents and the care providers, they are the first defence. They must point out the dangers, they must step in if they fear their child is being abused online in any way. But first of all before they do anything, they must ensure the child has the confidence not to be abused or disrespected. Confidence will be their best form of protection throughout their lives.<br /><br />Your approach to child protection Llota is like spitting in the wind and hoping it lands on a would be child molester. It isn't reasoned and it isn't logical. It ignores the ACTUAL abuse that goes on within the home, where 99% of sexual abuse occurs. You prefer the least likely stranger abduction scenario and the myth of the bogeyman. <br /><br />You are writing under the ridiculous belief that I am point out the reality of child abuse, the stats, because I want the McCanns to be guilty. Let me assure you my every thought does not begin and end with Gerry and Kate. <br /><br />Bjorn and I are discussing the subject in a reasonable, adult fashion, were are both educated, ergo we do not fear discussing 'taboo' subject. That you find our discussion outrageous bemuses me, have you reached for the smelling salts yet?Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-20833294847041407872019-05-18T15:14:03.043+01:002019-05-18T15:14:03.043+01:00Anonymous17 May 2019 at 22:45 / Pete
''. ...Anonymous17 May 2019 at 22:45 / Pete<br /><br />''. Not realistic is it.'''<br /><br />You said it. It's 'rock tight' silly.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-25396616068728545662019-05-18T15:11:35.258+01:002019-05-18T15:11:35.258+01:00Anonymous18 May 2019 at 11:50
If those links work...Anonymous18 May 2019 at 11:50<br /><br />If those links work I'm really happy.I haven't looked for it for a few years as youtube kept taking them down. here's hoping and thank you in advance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82475469979748858422019-05-18T15:09:02.500+01:002019-05-18T15:09:02.500+01:00Hello Llota "18 May 2019 at 12:25
"You ...Hello Llota "18 May 2019 at 12:25<br /><br />"You both state that paedohillia is a taboo subject in the UK"<br /><br />Yes,I do as it has in fact become very difficult to discuss the subject in question in a civilized and decent manner. <br /><br />Discussing war-crimes, rape, terrorism and sexuality including paedophilia does not mean that you support anything of it, but instead that you try to understand it in order to eliminate it.<br /><br />In a totalitarian state nothing of that kind can be seriously and openly discussed and that's the reason why I'm now worried about that sexuality in general, and paedophilia in particular cannot so easily be discussed in our modern democratic countries. Björnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-66431156348870564362019-05-18T15:04:26.799+01:002019-05-18T15:04:26.799+01:00Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 14:07
''Th...Rosalinda Hutton18 May 2019 at 14:07<br /><br />''The streets would be safer without me eh? lol<br />Actually this is a subject I do know a lot about, I wrote a book. I suggest you look up the number of careleavers who end up in prison and young offenders institutions. See how many of them were sexually abused while in care. ''<br /><br />I already know the statistics, thanks.I also know the statistics for those who left care and didn't abuse.I know the statistics for those who abused but hadn't been in care.You've chosen an isolated small area to support your hypothesis. care-leavers account for a very small section of society.You cant take a small slice of a small percentage and use that to make sweeping statements about society as a whole.That isn't how statistical analysis works.That's how misinformation works.<br /><br />It's strange you accuse me of not caring about something.I didn't mention caring about anything or not caring.<br /><br />Now why would you do that ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com